Obama Administration's Syrian Hypocrisy Cluster#@$%

Posted in the Marne Forum

First Prev
of 11
Next Last
Oneal

Grand Rapids, MI

#1 Aug 31, 2013
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/20...

[On Hannity Friday night, guest host Tucker Carlson had Kucinich on the show to discuss the following tweet, which links to a Washington Post article about how the administration is insisting that President Obama “has both the authority and determination to make his own decision on a military strike against Syria.”

... Meanwhile his own party is threatening impeachment if Obama tries. Kucinich points to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which says only Congress has the power to take America to war.“That’s a fundamental principle and if the president throws that away, disregards that I think there will be consequences for him,” he said.

Hypocritically, this is what Senators Obama and Biden said during the Bush administration:

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." - Senator Barack Obama

"...the president has no constitutional authority to take this country to war against a country of 70 million people unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. And if he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that, but I would lead an effort to impeach him.”- Senator Joe Biden
Really

Wyoming, MI

#2 Aug 31, 2013
Oneal wrote:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/l eahbarkoukis/2013/08/31/democr at-says-obama-risks-impeachmen t-if-he-goes-around-congress-a nd-attacks-syria-n1688366
[On Hannity Friday night, guest host Tucker Carlson had Kucinich on the show to discuss the following tweet, which links to a Washington Post article about how the administration is insisting that President Obama “has both the authority and determination to make his own decision on a military strike against Syria.”
... Meanwhile his own party is threatening impeachment if Obama tries. Kucinich points to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which says only Congress has the power to take America to war.“That’s a fundamental principle and if the president throws that away, disregards that I think there will be consequences for him,” he said.
Hypocritically, this is what Senators Obama and Biden said during the Bush administration:
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." - Senator Barack Obama
"...the president has no constitutional authority to take this country to war against a country of 70 million people unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. And if he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that, but I would lead an effort to impeach him.”- Senator Joe Biden
Unfortunately, in this day and age, there is no one in DC with the male body parts to try and do it. After all, it would be a racist thing to do. It couldn't possibly be because he is ignoring the Constitution, yet again, it HAS to be because he 1/2 black.

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#3 Aug 31, 2013
No matter what anyone thinks Obama just made the best announcement he could have...to let congress decide whether or not to do anything against Syria.

It's a brilliant move to save face...he knows damn well, just like anyone else, they will never come to an agreement which will put the blame on them, not him, for what ever action or lack thereof.
Really

Wyoming, MI

#4 Aug 31, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
No matter what anyone thinks Obama just made the best announcement he could have...to let congress decide whether or not to do anything against Syria.
It's a brilliant move to save face...he knows damn well, just like anyone else, they will never come to an agreement which will put the blame on them, not him, for what ever action or lack thereof.
Yes, he did the very thing he should have done.
Oneal

Grand Rapids, MI

#5 Aug 31, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
No matter what anyone thinks Obama just made the best announcement he could have...to let congress decide whether or not to do anything against Syria.
It's a brilliant move to save face...he knows damn well, just like anyone else, they will never come to an agreement which will put the blame on them, not him, for what ever action or lack thereof.
Bush did the same thing, asking and in his case receiving congressional approval to invade. Liberals seem to forget that.

In Obama's case it's come after his admin was out in the media wrongly blustering about how they didn't need congressional approval to attack Syria. More wishy-washy gamesmanship from the play-acting president Obama.

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#6 Sep 1, 2013
Oneal wrote:
<quoted text>
Bush did the same thing, asking and in his case receiving congressional approval to invade. Liberals seem to forget that.
In Obama's case it's come after his admin was out in the media wrongly blustering about how they didn't need congressional approval to attack Syria. More wishy-washy gamesmanship from the play-acting president Obama.
Albeit you are correct Bush did get approval, the lies he told to get us involved in Iraq are not forgotten...unless maybe by the conservative group??
Hopefully Obama will not use that approach and at least wait for the reports from the U.N. team as to whether chemical weapons were indeed used and who they suspect used them...and then wait for congress and the U.N. to figure out what to do.
Personally, I'd prefer we keep out of it and let them kill eachother off until they are sick of it. As I see it, it's muslims killing muslims and the more they kill eachother off that's a few less around who will try to kill us because we aren't muslim.
Really

Wyoming, MI

#7 Sep 1, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
Albeit you are correct Bush did get approval, the lies he told to get us involved in Iraq are not forgotten...unless maybe by the conservative group??
Hopefully Obama will not use that approach and at least wait for the reports from the U.N. team as to whether chemical weapons were indeed used and who they suspect used them...and then wait for congress and the U.N. to figure out what to do.
Personally, I'd prefer we keep out of it and let them kill eachother off until they are sick of it. As I see it, it's muslims killing muslims and the more they kill eachother off that's a few less around who will try to kill us because we aren't muslim.
While I will agree that the information the intelligence community had was faulty, I don't agree with the "he lied" statement. That being said, I agree with the rest of your statement. I suspect, however, that what Obama is doing is all politically based so he can avoid being a leader, yet again. Leaders make the tough choices and stand by their choices, good or bad. Obama has yet to do that in any instance.

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#8 Sep 1, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>While I will agree that the information the intelligence community had was faulty, I don't agree with the "he lied" statement. That being said, I agree with the rest of your statement. I suspect, however, that what Obama is doing is all politically based so he can avoid being a leader, yet again. Leaders make the tough choices and stand by their choices, good or bad. Obama has yet to do that in any instance.
What Obama is doing is most certainly politically based. He has to somehow save face after his "red line" comment.
What I find interesting is the division amoungst both parties as to the action the U.S. and/or other nations should take if chemical weapons were indeed used...most likely the Syrian govt as there's hardly any chance of anyone else having the capability to obtain them or use them.
It's almost an oddity that there are Dems and Reps that are grouped together that are for or against military action.
Oneal

Grand Rapids, MI

#9 Sep 1, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
Albeit you are correct Bush did get approval, the lies he told to get us involved in Iraq are not forgotten...unless maybe by the conservative group??
Hopefully Obama will not use that approach and at least wait for the reports from the U.N. team as to whether chemical weapons were indeed used and who they suspect used them...and then wait for congress and the U.N. to figure out what to do.
Personally, I'd prefer we keep out of it and let them kill eachother off until they are sick of it. As I see it, it's muslims killing muslims and the more they kill eachother off that's a few less around who will try to kill us because we aren't muslim.
Yes, the liberally revised version of reality ... we've all heard that.

It's too late for Obama to base his decision on UN findings, which, undoubtedly just like in Iraq, they've removed any evidence of weapons before allowing the UN in. Obama's already declared without question chemical weapons were used in Syria. The UN doesn't need to find a smoking gun, the evidence is the hundreds of innocent dead people, many kids, that didn't die from bee stings.

Obama's made the decision he wants to attack Syria. He's doing what he should do s president at this point in bringing it to congress to approve or not. His motives however are under question, as he and his admin spent all last week claiming they don't need congressional approval to attack Syria. More likely, Obama's handlers have advised him once again to pass the buck on to congress and then claim he has nothing to do with it.

Passing the buck, voting present, and pointing fingers is what Obama does best, and he's simply doing it again.

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#10 Sep 1, 2013
Oneal wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the liberally revised version of reality ... we've all heard that.
It's too late for Obama to base his decision on UN findings, which, undoubtedly just like in Iraq, they've removed any evidence of weapons before allowing the UN in. Obama's already declared without question chemical weapons were used in Syria. The UN doesn't need to find a smoking gun, the evidence is the hundreds of innocent dead people, many kids, that didn't die from bee stings.
Obama's made the decision he wants to attack Syria. He's doing what he should do s president at this point in bringing it to congress to approve or not. His motives however are under question, as he and his admin spent all last week claiming they don't need congressional approval to attack Syria. More likely, Obama's handlers have advised him once again to pass the buck on to congress and then claim he has nothing to do with it.
Passing the buck, voting present, and pointing fingers is what Obama does best, and he's simply doing it again.
That would be the "liberally revised version" that prompted Colin Powell to resign?? Or was his resignation a made up liberal story also? Or, just to be real, was he fed a pile of crap and used as a pawn to present false information to facilitate someone else's fantisy of creating a democracy in a country where it is factually impossible to hope for such a result??
As I've said before, Obama made a brilliant move to throw the decision into the lap of congress. The outcome will be a stalemate just like everything else they vote on and debate about. That's why they hold the lowest rating in History for approval.

Your obvious absolute conservative right wing stance on everything is what is contributing to the problems we are experiencing today.
Try looking at things from another view...open your eyes...stop being so damn one-sided. Just because someone disagrees with you does not automatically make the a "liberal".
Sheeeesh...
Oneal

Grand Rapids, MI

#11 Sep 1, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be the "liberally revised version" that prompted Colin Powell to resign?? Or was his resignation a made up liberal story also? Or, just to be real, was he fed a pile of crap and used as a pawn to present false information to facilitate someone else's fantisy of creating a democracy in a country where it is factually impossible to hope for such a result??
As I've said before, Obama made a brilliant move to throw the decision into the lap of congress. The outcome will be a stalemate just like everything else they vote on and debate about. That's why they hold the lowest rating in History for approval.
Your obvious absolute conservative right wing stance on everything is what is contributing to the problems we are experiencing today.
Try looking at things from another view...open your eyes...stop being so damn one-sided. Just because someone disagrees with you does not automatically make the a "liberal".
Sheeeesh...
Oh calm down. You've called a week of some of the worst wishy-washy decision making by any administration regarding whether or not to attack a foreign country "brilliant", and then you wonder why you're considered a liberal. Your post could have come right out of the mouth of Robert Gibbs on 'Meet The Nation' this morning, claiming Obama looks incredibly strong and decisive - while his fellow panel-members audibly chuckled at the sickening spin.

There isn't anything "brilliant" about passing the buck. This president continues to vote present.

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#12 Sep 1, 2013
Oneal wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh calm down. You've called a week of some of the worst wishy-washy decision making by any administration regarding whether or not to attack a foreign country "brilliant", and then you wonder why you're considered a liberal. Your post could have come right out of the mouth of Robert Gibbs on 'Meet The Nation' this morning, claiming Obama looks incredibly strong and decisive - while his fellow panel-members audibly chuckled at the sickening spin.
There isn't anything "brilliant" about passing the buck. This president continues to vote present.
I can tell you don't read people very well just by your "calm down". That would go in line with your reading someone as a "liberal" I suppose. Your apparent need to call anyone who dares to disagree with you a "liberal" delivers an apparent message that you are truely jaded and can not see things from any other point of view. Someday, maybe, when you grow up you will understand this but I don't expect much more for now...carry on young one...
Show me where I've claimed Obama is strong and decisive...
So you don't think trying to make congress responsible is a good move even though he contends he doesn't need their approval anyway is "brilliant"??
I'll be very surprised if the deadlocked congress will be able to form a commonly agreed upon resolution anyway.
Really

Wyoming, MI

#13 Sep 1, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
What Obama is doing is most certainly politically based. He has to somehow save face after his "red line" comment.
What I find interesting is the division amoungst both parties as to the action the U.S. and/or other nations should take if chemical weapons were indeed used...most likely the Syrian govt as there's hardly any chance of anyone else having the capability to obtain them or use them.
It's almost an oddity that there are Dems and Reps that are grouped together that are for or against military action.
It is just one more indication of the divisiveness we see in the country today. There have been and continue to be many instances that Obama could lead on and yet he still chooses to "defer" to someone else. He looks like an uncomfortable teenager who truly cannot make up his mind which way the wind is blowing and which "side" to be on. Once again, as my Dad always used to tell me, "Stand for something or you will fall for anything."

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#14 Sep 1, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>It is just one more indication of the divisiveness we see in the country today. There have been and continue to be many instances that Obama could lead on and yet he still chooses to "defer" to someone else. He looks like an uncomfortable teenager who truly cannot make up his mind which way the wind is blowing and which "side" to be on. Once again, as my Dad always used to tell me, "Stand for something or you will fall for anything."
Trying to zero in on "leadership" is a lost cause.
Name one politician you would allow or accept as a "leader" from the current stable of politicians...
Oneal

Grand Rapids, MI

#15 Sep 1, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
So you don't think trying to make congress responsible is a good move even though he contends he doesn't need their approval anyway is "brilliant"??
I'll be very surprised if the deadlocked congress will be able to form a commonly agreed upon resolution anyway.
No, I don't think it was brilliant. There isn't anything brilliant, or presidential, about passing the buck again.
The American people do not want to get involved in Syria. Obama does not have unilateral ally support. Even our long-term ally, UK, abandoned any notion of getting involved. The democrats are not fully in support of attacking Syria. So, Obama, after days of demanding "I've made the decision" to attack Syria, and also insisting he doesn't need congressional approval, now decides to place the decision to kill people of another nation in the hands of a body of inept congressmen to decide for him? All so he doesn't have to answer for it.

No, I don't call that brilliant. I call that cowardice.
Oneal

Grand Rapids, MI

#16 Sep 1, 2013
Also, keep in mind, the only reason for Obama, a reluctant war president at best, to even consider attacking Syria is because he irresponsibly opened his big mouth and made the "red line" comment, and once again had his bluff called by a dangerous radical leader.

Obama playing president with these serious foreign affairs issues (when he's not playing golf or partying) is like watching a child play a game with adults.

Yes, his handlers will come in and protect him - I guess to some that's "brilliant".

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#17 Sep 1, 2013
Oneal wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't think it was brilliant. There isn't anything brilliant, or presidential, about passing the buck again.
The American people do not want to get involved in Syria. Obama does not have unilateral ally support. Even our long-term ally, UK, abandoned any notion of getting involved. The democrats are not fully in support of attacking Syria. So, Obama, after days of demanding "I've made the decision" to attack Syria, and also insisting he doesn't need congressional approval, now decides to place the decision to kill people of another nation in the hands of a body of inept congressmen to decide for him? All so he doesn't have to answer for it.
No, I don't call that brilliant. I call that cowardice.
You really, really, really have a hard time with one party and one party only..."The democrats are not fully in support of attacking Syria."

Care to tell us how the republicans stand?? Or would that make you throw up having to admit there are several calling for some sort of action just like some democrats??

LOL...
Oneal

Grand Rapids, MI

#18 Sep 1, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
You really, really, really have a hard time with one party and one party only..."The democrats are not fully in support of attacking Syria."
Care to tell us how the republicans stand?? Or would that make you throw up having to admit there are several calling for some sort of action just like some democrats??
LOL...
I never said dems were fully supportive of attacking Syria. That was something you made up. For that matter, you just think I've taken a close-minded partisan opinion because there's very, very little the democrats do or say that a conservative can support, therefore it seems that way because. When this admin or the democratic party does something a conservative can support I'll let you know.

To answer your question, which is more than you ever would do if history serves:
I suspect congress will approve Obama's request to attack Syria, repubs and dems, in a mixed vote, despite an overwhelming opinion of the American people they're supposed to represent that we don't want to be involved at all, proving once again why this congress is the most unpopular in history, repubs and dems alike.
Really

Wyoming, MI

#19 Sep 1, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
Trying to zero in on "leadership" is a lost cause.
Name one politician you would allow or accept as a "leader" from the current stable of politicians...
None of the current stable. I don't like politicians as a general rule because they, for whatever reason, think they know better than me what is best for me. The days of good leadership are past, at least for now. I don't despair of another one showing up, but they are few and far between. And that is on us, the American people, because we have abdicated our responsibility as citizens to hold them accountable.

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#20 Sep 1, 2013
Oneal wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said dems were fully supportive of attacking Syria. That was something you made up. For that matter, you just think I've taken a close-minded partisan opinion because there's very, very little the democrats do or say that a conservative can support, therefore it seems that way because. When this admin or the democratic party does something a conservative can support I'll let you know.
To answer your question, which is more than you ever would do if history serves:
I suspect congress will approve Obama's request to attack Syria, repubs and dems, in a mixed vote, despite an overwhelming opinion of the American people they're supposed to represent that we don't want to be involved at all, proving once again why this congress is the most unpopular in history, repubs and dems alike.
I've made nothing up...you have only been making comments about democrats, and have not entered any opinions regarding republicans.
Grow up, you are too obvious...good grief...
Hopefully when you grow up you will recognize your ignorance and be able to see the world in a more educated experience.
Come on...expose some republican congress people who go against what you believe in...I dare you...
You can't...LOL...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 11
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Marne Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
College football roundup: Ohio State starts the... (Sep '13) 6 hr Buffalo Bull 1,480
Old things and places we remember from the Gran... (Feb '09) 11 hr cnreadle 974
sony balony Fri kookierecluse 4
Experience a historical Christmas in downtown G... Fri DrX 54
Put Tolls on Our Interstate Highways Fri Really 18
3 reasons Grand Rapids-area Muslims want to ope... Dec 18 tom_ 21
City of Pentecost Christmas program Dec 18 COP OUTREACH 1
Marne Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Marne People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Marne News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Marne

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 6:00 am PST

Bleacher Report 6:00AM
Fantasy Football Week 16: Updated Rankings for Sunday's Action
Bleacher Report 6:02 AM
The Coach That Could Turn Around Bears
Bleacher Report11:28 AM
Jay Cutler Rumors: Latest Details, Speculation on Bears QB's Future
NBC Sports12:33 PM
1 thing even Rahm can't fix: Da Bears - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 8:26 AM
Report: Executives suggest Bears could have to attach a draft pick to move Cutler